Amid this country’s woes on the domestic and international fronts, typhoon “Lawin” ripped through Northern Luzon this week, leaving in its trail at least seven people dead, five missing, homes and livelihoods destroyed, and billions of pesos in damaged crops and infrastructure.
Even the offices of the Cagayan Valley Regional Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council were not spared, and disaster officials were forced to conduct meetings, in the aftermath of the typhoon, in a hotel.
The typhoon, which made landfall Wednesday evening, had winds of 225 kilometers per hour and gusts of up to 315 kph. As a result, several provincial councils have declared a state of calamity in their respective areas.
“Lawin,” deemed a super typhoon, has been compared to typhoon “Yolanda,” which ravaged the central Philippines nearly three years ago. Yolanda taught us a few things at that time, and it would be good to ask ourselves whether we had indeed learned these lessons—or if we just fell back on the same patterns that have rendered us perpetually surprised and scrambling when disaster strikes.
Out of the experience of Yolanda and succeeding typhoons, we determined that the flow of information between and among government units, local and national, was crucial especially in the first few hours. Clear protocols must be established to know who makes the decisions during emergency situations. Scientific terms have to be communicated clearly to the people.
And politics should not get in the way.
We learned that a disaster near Metro Manila is not more important than a disaster in a far-flung community that does not have cellular service or internet connection.
Given the present government context we are also reminded that some issues are not any more important than others just because they are talked about in controversial—nay, scandalous—fashion. For example, we have seen how the congressional investigation into the alleged links of Senator Leila de Lima to the drug trade in the National Bilibid Prison amounted to nothing despite the so-called witnesses’ explosive claims.
These days we tend to watch everything that comes out of President Rodrigo Duterte’s mouth. Since the campaign, he has proven himself a fascinating character, a rebel who seemed to have his heart in the right place. But it is now clear that the effort that went into decoding this maverick President’s words is counterproductive and time consuming.
Would it not be a relief to have a leader who says exactly what he means instead of making impulsive, populist statements which his subordinates later have to put “in the proper context?”
And would it not be good for the people to be assured that the President knows just what to do in ensuring the resilience of communities instead of always fretting about the next disruptive, embarrassing, or potentially damaging thing he might say?
“Lawin” reminded us that we still have a lot to learn in getting our priorities in order.
